Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place

Gun Control

<< < (2/3) > >>

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: delalluvia on July 23, 2012, 06:54:13 pm ---I didn't find any options that I believe in to choose from.

I believe in MUCH stronger controls on automatic weapons.

I believe in MUCH thorough federal investigation of gun sellers and close audits of their sales and inventory.

I believe in limits to ammunition sold.  NOBODY needs 6000 rounds.
--- End quote ---

I agree with all of these points. In addition, I wish there were some way to stop ammunition sales on the Internet, but that's probably impossible.

jackofalltrades:
Here in Houston there is a gun show almost every weekend. There are no background checks, no limits, and no waiting period. Cash-n-carry.

ifyoucantfixit:


    Well I am sorry that I didn't know more options to present.  I suppose I should have had a other...?  option.  that way people could fill in the blank.
However I think that you are doing that, basically by adding your comments in the reply section.

    I think all of these options should be explored and followed through.  If as you said Dela there was a very high price or tax on the ammo.  There would have to be a great deal of cash involved in having bullets.  Probably would price a lot of people out of the gun carrying group.  I would certainly never want to have to use $100.00 bullets for target practice.  I suppose that would be out of the realm of possibility for getting anyone to agree to a law of that nature however.  I think when Mr Rock placed that option out there.  It was more tongue in cheek, than a real choice he thought would happen.   I do believe we should have much more of a length of time after someone purchases a gun, however until they are allowed to pick it up.  I also do not believe that anyone anywhere has a real ligitimate reason to have those army or police issue guns.  I think they should be the only ones allowed to have them period.  I don't care who disagrees with that idea.. 

Front-Ranger:
Janice, I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll. Would you like to reopen it for voting?

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually confers the right to any ordinary citizen to bear arms. Here it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As I interpret this, the right is extended to the people, as a body, to have a militia (a well regulated one) that is armed, to protect them. In other words, our armed forces, our police, etc. Nowhere does the amendment mention individuals, and it BEGINs with a reference to the militia, so that must be pretty important to the meaning. The second clause refers to the security of a free state, so it must have been very important to the writers that the people should be and feel secure. And when a crazy person can mow you down with a machine gun anywhere, do you feel secure? No.

Mandy21:
That is a grammatically-challenged sentence, to say the least.  The verb, when it finally comes, is in a poorly-chosen place.  I can see where there would be room for interpretation.  I'm sorry I'm just seeing this thread now.  I would have voted before the polls closed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page